Discussion Repeaters Versus Muzzleloaders

[Saphroneth]

My unit once did a firing demo where we showed the difference in loading and firing rates between a Henry rifle and muzzleloading Springfields. We had a squad fire a single round from the Springfields, and then I fired off 11 rounds from my Henry before they could reload a second shot. As expected, the spectators were impressed. However, when I used my Henry at the Bentonville 150th reenactment, it didn't take long for that sandy soil to get into it, making me stop for minute during a scenario to clean it up. So, there were obvious advantages and disadvantages to both types of weapons from what I could tell, just from using them in these non-combat situations.

View attachment 343869

Interesting; how long does it take to do a full reload?

If you can rattle off 11 rounds and then it takes four times as long to reload (for example) then the advantage is lessened, but if the reload doesn't take much longer (or is shorter) then the advangate is more like what you'd expect.

The point about the mechanism jamming is worth knowing as well. I've heard that Spencers are similarly a bit prone to it.

 

[MikeyB]

Are carbines, by definition, less powerful and less range than rifles?
My question being - if it was physically possible to arm the Union armies with Sharps and other breechloading carbines, would that have been a more formidable fighting force than IRL, or do you give up too much on firepower and range where its questionable?

 

[ranger326]

Not having the knowledge that the learned contributors to this post have, I am left with two thoughts: 1.) In every description of every battle that I have read, eyewitness references mention the tremendous amount of smoke on the field. If the average muzzleloader can get off two to three shots a minute and can cause such smoke over a prolonged period, what amount of smoke would a repeater generate with three to four times that rate of fire? Does anyone know of any eyewitness accounts of this? It seems to me that no matter how fast you can pull the trigger, if the smoke keeps blowing in your face, accuracy is compromised. Having said that, 2.) If I was a private during the Civil War and unaware of the history to come and of the statistics mentioned and I was allowed to choose my weapon between a musket and a repeater, which one would I choose?

 

[Saphroneth]

Are carbines, by definition, less powerful and less range than rifles?

Generally, yes. They're shorter barrels, which means that for the same powder charge they have less muzzle velocity as the projectile does not have as long to build up momentum.

My question being - if it was physically possible to arm the Union armies with Sharps and other breechloading carbines, would that have been a more formidable fighting force than IRL, or do you give up too much on firepower and range where its questionable?

With the troops that actually fought the Civil War, then going to BL carbines would be an upgrade. (Not an unambiguous one in all respects, but an upgrade overall given the engagement ranges.)

However, with trained troops able to use the weapons to the feasible limits of their capabilities, then I would say that ML rifles and BL carbines would be the same rough scale of upgrade.

Not having the knowledge that the learned contributors to this post have, I am left with two thoughts: 1.) In every description of every battle that I have read, eyewitness references mention the tremendous amount of smoke on the field. If the average muzzleloader can get off two to three shots a minute and can cause such smoke over a prolonged period, what amount of smoke would a repeater generate with three to four times that rate of fire? Does anyone know of any eyewitness accounts of this? It seems to me that no matter how fast you can pull the trigger, if the smoke keeps blowing in your face, accuracy is compromised.

The smoke issue is definitely worth considering, especially for repeaters being used by units in close order. But the natural compensation for that is that with weapons that are "more effective per person" you can then spread the men out a bit - so you need less men to hold the same length of front. It's why British troops with the training to use their Enfields accurately could space their troops out and thus generate less smoke per meter of front; this means in turn that you can outflank the enemy more easily.

If I was a private during the Civil War and unaware of the history to come and of the statistics mentioned and I was allowed to choose my weapon between a musket and a repeater, which one would I choose?

You'd choose a repeater. Modern weapons had an intense fascination at the time.

 

[MikeyB]

Generally, yes. They're shorter barrels, which means that for the same powder charge they have less muzzle velocity as the projectile does not have as long to build up momentum.


With the troops that actually fought the Civil War, then going to BL carbines would be an upgrade. (Not an unambiguous one in all respects, but an upgrade overall given the engagement ranges.)

However, with trained troops able to use the weapons to the feasible limits of their capabilities, then I would say that ML rifles and BL carbines would be the same rough scale of upgrade.



The smoke issue is definitely worth considering, especially for repeaters being used by units in close order. But the natural compensation for that is that with weapons that are "more effective per person" you can then spread the men out a bit - so you need less men to hold the same length of front. It's why British troops with the training to use their Enfields accurately could space their troops out and thus generate less smoke per meter of front; this means in turn that you can outflank the enemy more easily.


You'd choose a repeater. Modern weapons had an intense fascination at the time.

Was there any serious effort to teach troops marksmanship? Is there any evidence that Regular units better utilized the full range capabilities of rifles over the volunteers?

 

[Saphroneth]

Was there any serious effort to teach troops marksmanship? Is there any evidence that Regular units better utilized the full range capabilities of rifles over the volunteers?

There was no particular evidence that Regular units did it better, because even the Regulars did not learn much musketry. Indeed, in 1858 a regular officer en route to New Mexico ordered his men (described as recruits, but they must have been through Basic) to load their weapons and found that about half of them put the cartridge in ball first and powder second.
In late 1864 Warren reported that thousands of his men had "never fired a musket".

Musketry practice appears to have been an exceptional event and there was not really any organized training in range estimation (which is the really critical bit, though a lot of men seem to have been unable to hit even at "point blank".)


There was however a particular elite unit in the Union army which recieved the full benefit of a modern program of musketry training, and that's the US Sharpshooters regiments. They were trained in a way which was not very different from the program of training given to every single British soldier (including the gunners, not just the infantry).

 

[Claude Bauer]

Generally, yes. They're shorter barrels, which means that for the same powder charge they have less muzzle velocity as the projectile does not have as long to build up momentum.


With the troops that actually fought the Civil War, then going to BL carbines would be an upgrade. (Not an unambiguous one in all respects, but an upgrade overall given the engagement ranges.)

However, with trained troops able to use the weapons to the feasible limits of their capabilities, then I would say that ML rifles and BL carbines would be the same rough scale of upgrade.



The smoke issue is definitely worth considering, especially for repeaters being used by units in close order. But the natural compensation for that is that with weapons that are "more effective per person" you can then spread the men out a bit - so you need less men to hold the same length of front. It's why British troops with the training to use their Enfields accurately could space their troops out and thus generate less smoke per meter of front; this means in turn that you can outflank the enemy more easily.


You'd choose a repeater. Modern weapons had an intense fascination at the time.

I agree that most probably would have opted for a repeater of some kind if given the option. The accounts of Confederates who went up against Henry rifle companies attest to the "shock and awe" capability of the weapon at the time. I've heard that several of the bodyguards for Jefferson Davis had Henry rifles--undoubtedly, the thought of going up against a rapid firing, state of the art firearm was a huge deterrent factor.

 

[Saphroneth]

I agree that most probably would have opted for a repeater of some kind if given the option. The accounts of Confederates who went up against Henry rifle companies attest to the "shock and awe" capability of the weapon at the time.

Can't have been many Henry rifle companies, the total factory production was extremely low. Think ~7 weapons per day.

With the usual rate of breakages for rifle-muskets in the ACW (roughly speaking a weapon lasts 1-2 years) and assuming the Henry was about the same then AFAICT you end up with the number that the factory would be able to sustain about 4,000 Henry rifles actually in the hands of field soldiers; that is, once you have 4,000 rifles deployed in drill and service, the breakage rate is the same as the production rate.

 

[Claude Bauer]

Interesting; how long does it take to do a full reload?

If you can rattle off 11 rounds and then it takes four times as long to reload (for example) then the advantage is lessened, but if the reload doesn't take much longer (or is shorter) then the advangate is more like what you'd expect.

The point about the mechanism jamming is worth knowing as well. I've heard that Spencers are similarly a bit prone to it.

I never timed the reload speed, but it would probably take about 1-2 seconds a round. You're just reaching for them and dropping them down a tube. Goes pretty quickly.

 

[Claude Bauer]

Can't have been many Henry rifle companies, the total factory production was extremely low. Think ~7 weapons per day.

With the usual rate of breakages for rifle-muskets in the ACW (roughly speaking a weapon lasts 1-2 years) and assuming the Henry was about the same then AFAICT you end up with the number that the factory would be able to sustain about 4,000 Henry rifles actually in the hands of field soldiers; that is, once you have 4,000 rifles deployed in drill and service, the breakage rate is the same as the production rate.

Didn't say there were a lot, just that those that were out there were intimidating.

 

[Saphroneth]

I never timed the reload speed, but it would probably take about 1-2 seconds a round. You're just reaching for them and dropping them down a tube. Goes pretty quickly.

I've heard that with period primers (which were slightly more unstable) dropping them down a tube like that could result in a magazine fire? Might not be an issue with repro primers, but what I've been told is that the reloading drill was to hold the tube at an angle and gently shake the rounds down - which would add more time, naturally.

 

[CowCavalry]

I've heard that with period primers (which were slightly more unstable) dropping them down a tube like that could result in a magazine fire? Might not be an issue with repro primers, but what I've been told is that the reloading drill was to hold the tube at an angle and gently shake the rounds down - which would add more time, naturally.

I have an Uberti repro I purchased from a member here, that is the recommendation to load. Mine is in .45 Colt, a centerfire round. The original being a .44 Henry rimfire, they should have been much less likely to detonate however, care should always be exercised! In either case, they do not take long to load. In the heat of battle, it probable felt like an eternity. Both rounds are blunt nosed, so the likelihood of a detonation in the tube should have been remote.

Edit: you are probably correct about the period priming; I have heard that some of the ammo would not have a complete ring of primer around the rim making a misfire more probable, and I suppose still possible today, hence a modern .22 rimfire weapon has dual "pins", to strike the case in two places making a misfire much less likely.

Edit: the part about modern .22's having dual firing pins is not true for all, I do have an old Remington .22 of my grandfather's that does though.

 

[Peter Stines]

As others have stated, the larger caliber muzzle and breech loaders had some advantages over repeaters. The larger slower moving bullets are obvious. More knock down power and able to "buck the wind" better. The Henry round was .44 rimfire flat and is more of a handgun round (like the .44/40) The Spencer had more punch than the Henry but it was 7 rounds v.s. 16. Repeaters could jam if worked a bit too quickly or vigorously. If the magazine on the Henry became dented it could cause feed problems. Extractors could break and if the firing pin became damaged, fire stick no go boom. Evidently the quality of some of the rimfire rounds was erratic and misfires were a problem. Firing a repeater rapidly caused the barrel to heat up to unbearable levels making it difficult to hold the gun. True on a hot day, a m/l barrel can heat up pretty seriously as well. I've burned my dainty digits that way a time or two! Still having the extra firepower without having to stuff it down with a ramrod with a major factor. Imagine trying to load your Springfield or Enfield in the rain ? Or lying down on your back or belly while the "other gun" just keeps pumping rounds at you. He might be out of range but he could get lucky and it's un nerving. (Remember the scene in "Lonesome Dove" where Robert Duval is being shot at with a Sharps Buffalo gun and he has a Henry rifle ? As he fired back he watched where the rounds hit and raised the elevation each time until he hit his attacker in the gut)

 

[Saphroneth]

Imagine trying to load your Springfield or Enfield in the rain ?

You'd probably be fine unless it was an absolute deluge. The problem rain caused for flintlocks was the priming pan, and the percussion cap largely eliminated that.

 

[James N.]

Of course there were two massacres suffered by soldiers armed with breech loaders that jammed after a few rounds. Custer's men were found with the broken blades of their knives scattered around them. The knives were broken in frantic attempts to remove spent rounds jammed in the chamber of their Sharpes. The British in the South African Battle of Isandlwana lost an entire 1,300 man unit to an attack by Zulu warriors when their rifles jammed after as few as ten rounds. All of those men would have been far better off with Spencers that did not jam under battlefield conditions.

I don't know how well that story of the broken penknives held up following the grass fire and subsequent archeological excavations; however, by the time of the battle, the Spencer (not Sharps) carbines of the 7th had been replaced by then-regulation Trapdoor Springfields.

 

[Saphroneth]

The British in the South African Battle of Isandlwana lost an entire 1,300 man unit to an attack by Zulu warriors when their rifles jammed after as few as ten rounds.

The Battle of Isandlwana was essentially what you expect to happen when about 15,000 or so enemy soldiers launch an all-out attack on a supply base defended by roughly one regiment of defenders (750 - there were also some non-regular troops who were armed with other weapons); notably at the not-much-later Rorke's Drift using the same weapons the British successfully defended (at worse odds) and during the other engagements in the Zulu war the British suffered almost no casualties at all. This implies that the problem leading to the Isandlwana attack was not a systemic issue of weapons, but was a tactical issue - because a weapons issue could not have been fixed fast enough.

 

[thomas aagaard]

The British in the South African Battle of Isandlwana lost an entire 1,300 man unit to an attack by Zulu warriors when their rifles jammed after as few as ten rounds. All of those men would have been far better off with Spencers that did not jam under battlefield conditions.

Seriously, where do you get that strange idea?

A claim about how they ran out of ammo because the boxes could not open, I would understand, that was the first explanation for the defeat.

But there is plenty of evidence that that cartridges where issued from the supply wagons.

Also there is some evidence that some units who where far out did run out of ammo.
Again pointing to the fact that jamming was not a big issue.

So your claim that weapons jams across the line after 10 shots do not make much sense when looking at the evidence.

The brits lost because they greatly underestimated the operational and tactical skills of the Zulus and made bad operational and tactical decision. First by splitting their force and then by trying to defend a perimeter that was way to big for the force at hand.

And they where then over run by an enemy that outnumbered them and who made better tactical decisions.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Seriously, where do you get that strange idea?

A claim about how they ran out of ammo because the boxes could not open, I would understand, that was the first explanation for the defeat.

But there is plenty of evidence that that cartridges where issued from the supply wagons.

Also there is some evidence that some units who where far out did run out of ammo.
Again pointing to the fact that jamming was not a big issue.

So your claim that weapons jams across the line after 10 shots do not make much sense when looking at the evidence.

The brits lost because they greatly underestimated the operational and tactical skills of the Zulus and made bad operational and tactical decision. First by splitting their force and then by trying to defend a perimeter that was way to big for the force at hand.

And they where then over run by an enemy that outnumbered them and who made better tactical decisions.

My answer is all the above. My point was that having breechloaders was not enough.

 

[thomas aagaard]

My answer is all the above. My point was that having breechloaders was not enough.

And yet again you make a wrong claim, is called on it and refuse to back up you claim with any evidence.

 

[Saphroneth]

My answer is all the above. My point was that having breechloaders was not enough.

Having a tank isn't enough in some circumstances.

You were arguing that the reliability of the Spencer repeating rifle would have made it a superior weapon to use at Isandlwana rather than the unreliable Martini-Henry. In light of this it's interesting to note what happened when Lincoln first gave the Spencer a try.

From the Washington Post:

His curiosity sparked by the general's inquiry, Lincoln requested a Spencer rifle from the Navy to evaluate it for himself. Unfortunately, the first gun he received had problems, and so did the second.

The president found that the initial rifle's "[magazine] tube was wound so tight in place that I could not get it out." That was just the beginning. The second rifle had a functioning magazine tube, but when the lever was worked to chamber a cartridge, two jumped forward, jamming the gun so thoroughly that it took 15 minutes to disassemble and clear it.

After the Spencer was reassembled, Lincoln was able to fire a number of shots, but the president was concerned that the two rifles, already inspected and accepted by the Navy, did not function properly. Based on these misadventures, Lincoln advised Hurlbut on Aug. 4, 1863, that he would not be getting any Spencers.


Thus, as we can see, two Spencers selected effectively randomly from the Navy's armoury did not work. If this had been indicative of the quality of Spencers in general, then the men of the 24th Regiment of Foot would have died having inflicted far fewer casualties on the Zulu attackers, as most of them would be too busy trying to disassemble their jammed rifles to fix the magazines. (This is a process that takes much longer than removing a torn brass cartridge from an overly hot chamber, and at least the heat issue can be controlled with measured fire rates.)

Of course, other Spencers actually did work on a later demonstration, but it should be noted that it took the inventor specially bringing along weapons he had personally selected in advance to make the demonstration for them to actually work when Lincoln had a go with them.